SEC Seeks Input on Financial Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative

Save Article

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued a release that requests public comment on the effectiveness of the financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-X that apply to certain entities other than the registrant. The publication is the first request for comment associated with the Commission’s disclosure effectiveness initiative, a broad-based staff review of the disclosure requirements in the SEC’s rules as well as the presentation and delivery of those disclosures. Comments on the release are due by November 30, 2015.

SEC Chairman Mary Jo White indicated that the request for comment is an “important step in our review of the disclosure requirements” and will “help us evaluate potential changes to Regulation S-X that would benefit both investors and companies.”¹

Entities other than the registrant whose financial information may need to be disclosed may include acquired businesses, equity method investees, guarantors and issuers of guaranteed securities, and affiliates whose securities collateralize registered securities.

The request for comment includes 58 questions about the disclosure requirements; the overall themes of these questions can be characterized as follows:

—How well do the requirements of each rule inform investors, and how do investors use the disclosures to make investment and voting decisions?

Financial Statements of Businesses Acquired or to Be Acquired and Related Requirements

Under Regulation S-X, when an SEC registrant consummates a significant business acquisition, the registrant may be required to file up to three years of the acquired business’s preacquisition audited annual financial statements and unaudited interim financial statements. If required, the financial statements of the acquired business are typically filed in a Form 8-K along with pro forma financial information.² Additional requirements must be considered for probable acquisitions and for certain registration statements and proxy statements.

Disclosures about business acquisitions allow current and prospective investors to evaluate the future impact of an acquisition on the registrant’s financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and future prospects.

The SEC is seeking input on how investors use the information about a significant business acquisition and whether enhanced pro forma information can be more useful to investors. For example, the SEC is considering whether comparative pro forma income statements or additional disclosures would improve the usefulness of the pro forma financial information.

The Commission is also requesting feedback on the income, investment and asset tests that are performed to determine the significance of a business acquisition.³ Currently, these tests employ bright-line percentage thresholds⁴ and do not allow registrants to use judgment when evaluating the related facts and circumstances. Further, the SEC is asking whether the definition of a business in Regulation S-X, Article 11, should be aligned with that in accounting standards such as ASC 805.⁵

Separate Financial Statements of Subsidiaries Not Consolidated

To ensure that investors receive relevant financial information about a registrant’s significant activities, Regulation S-X requires registrants that have a significant equity method investee to provide financial information about the investee in their filings with the SEC. The amount of information a registrant must present depends on the investee’s significance, which is determined by performing the applicable significant-subsidiary tests.⁶

Depending on the outcome of the significance tests, registrants may be required to provide separate audited and unaudited annual financial statements for each individually significant equity method investee or summarized financial information,⁷ on an aggregate basis, for all investees. Different requirements must be considered for a registrant’s interim financial statements⁸ as well.

The SEC acknowledges that financial information provided about significant equity method investees has certain limitations, particularly when such information is prepared by using accounting standards, fiscal year-ends or reporting currencies that differ from those employed by the registrant. The SEC has requested input on ways to improve the usefulness of this information, including whether summarized financial information could be expanded. In addition, the Commission is seeking feedback on the appropriateness of the significance tests, including whether registrants that are evaluating significance should be allowed to use greater judgment rather than the current bright-line thresholds.

Other Matters

The SEC has encouraged all interested parties to provide feedback on any matters related to the financial information of entities other than the registrant, including financial statements for significant real estate operations⁹ and whether investors would benefit from having such disclosures in XBRL format.

The SEC has also requested input on broader topics such as other rules and forms that should be considered for review, how technology could be used to facilitate disclosure of useful information and alternative approaches to presenting disclosures to make it easier to use that information. In addition, with respect to financial information of entities other than the registrant, the SEC is seeking input on whether disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies, emerging growth companies, foreign private issuers, and investment companies should also be enhanced or modified.

Read the fullHeads Up newsletter to learn more about the Regulation S-X proposal and request for comment, including additional details about financial statements of guarantors and issuers of guaranteed securities registered or being registered, and financial statements of affiliates whose securities collateralize an issue registered or being registered.

Endnotes1. Quoted from the SEC’s September 25, 2015, press release announcing the request for comment.2. The form, content, and requirements for pro forma financial information are outlined in Regulation S-X, Article 11, “Pro Forma Financial Information.”3. The measurement of a business acquisition’s significance is subject to a series of tests, which are defined in Regulation S-X, Rule 1-02(w), “Significant Subsidiary.”4. Regulation S-X, Rule 3-05(b)(2), “Periods to Be Presented,” requires that one, two, or three years of audited preacquisition financial statements be filed if significance exceeds 20%, 40%, or 50%, respectively, under the income, investment, or asset test.5. FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 805, Business Combinations.6. Rule 3-09 requires that separate audited financial statements of an individual equity method investment be provided if the investment is more than 20 percent significant on the basis of either the investment test or the income test. Regulation S-X, Rule 4-08(g), “Summarized Financial Information of Subsidiaries Not Consolidated and 50 Percent or Less Owned Persons,” requires that summarized financial information be provided if either an individual equity method investment or an aggregated group of investments is more than 10% percent significant on the basis of the investment test, income test, or asset test.7. Regulation S-X, Rule 1-02(bb).8. Regulation S-X, Rule 10-01(b)(1), requires that registrants provide summarized financial information in their quarterly reports for any individual equity method investment for which separate financial statements would be required for annual periods.9. Under Regulation S-X, Rule 3-14, “Special Instructions for Real Estate Operations to Be Acquired.”

SEC Seeks Input on Financial Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative

Related Deloitte Insights

In response to the increase in digital technology, and the severity and frequency of cybersecurity threats and incidents, the SEC issued interpretive guidance. The guidance does not establish new disclosure obligations but rather presents the SEC’s views on how its existing rules should be interpreted in connection with cybersecurity threats and incidents. It also emphasized that registrants are responsible for disclosing appropriate information to keep investors informed and must balance the need for timely disclosure with the level of detail they can provide about such incidents.

For private equity portfolio companies, the new revenue recognition standards issued by the FASB and the IASB could change several key financial metrics and ratios, including revenue and EBITDA. Implementation may require considerable efforts to understand the accounting issues and the broader implications for processes, controls and systems. Learn specific considerations that may help companies address implementation and operations challenges.

Tax reform may present challenges for some organizations that prepare their financial statements using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). They include, determining how an aspect of the legislation applies to an organization’s specific facts and circumstances, gathering data to quantify that application, or a combination of the two. Todd Izzo, partner, International Tax, and Paul Vitola, partner, Washington National Tax Group, both with Deloitte Tax LLP, discuss how the interaction between the new tax law and IFRS may play out with respect to net operating losses, the new global intangible low taxed income inclusion requirement, and other issues.

Views & Analysis

Culture is often an overlooked foundation of an organization’s strategy and performance. Yet today diagnostic tools, cognitive analytics, risk sensing and other technologies can provide organizations insights into day-to-day risk factors embedded within their cultures. Carey Oven, Deloitte Risk and Financial Advisory partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP, discusses the challenges organizations face in improving their culture risk profile and ways they can help protect their culture and monitor risks that could damage it.

Recent corporate scandals linked to problematic company cultures have led directors to look for ways to better monitor corporate culture, while trying to understand potential risks and address problems before they become a significant challenge. By treating culture risk as part of an integrated process of oversight that addresses strategy, performance, and risk—and taking a proactive and persistent approach—boards can improve their oversight of culture risk. Learn some general approaches to culture risk oversight that management and boards alike should consider.

Traditionally, internal audit (IA) has focused on providing assurance with respect to known risks and the effectiveness of controls in mitigating those risks. Regulators, however, are increasingly interested in an organization’s ability to identify blind spots and other vulnerabilities that may undermine the integrity of the risk management environment, including the risk of misconduct. IA functions can play a pivotal role by substantively testing culture and identifying potential risk-related outliers that may not be visible via other means, such as supervisory frameworks, escalations, compliance assessment and testing, and previous audits.

Editor's Choice

Robert Hull, chairman of the board of SPX FLOW and a director at Bojangles’ Inc., draws on a deep background in finance and operations for his current governance roles. The former CFO of Lowe’s Companies discusses how his finance career prepared him for a board role, and offers suggestions for what finance chiefs seeking to serve on a board can do to prepare. He also talks about the board’s role in risk management and strategy oversight.

New training models are providing organizations tools to measure, monitor, and address ethical and unethical behaviors. However, ethics training still has far to go to be effective, according to both Christopher Adkins, executive director of the Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership, and Maureen Mohlenkamp, Deloitte Risk and Financial Advisory principal, Deloitte & Touche LLP. They discuss ways to strengthen ethics programs, advances in whistleblower helplines and how technology is impacting ethics training.

Digital risks are becoming a rising concern for the C-suite and boards, as industries continue to converge and companies adopt new business models to compete. Understand what steps can be deployed to address the strategic risks that come with today’s digital technologies in this conversation with William Ribaudo, managing partner of Deloitte Risk and Financial Advisory’s Digital Risk Venture Portfolio, Deloitte & Touche LLP. Also, learn why organizations should reassess their business models to understand their digital maturity.

About Deloitte Insights

Deloitte’s Insights for C-suite executives and board members provide information and resources to help address the challenges of managing risk for both value creation and protection, as well as increasing compliance requirements.